I worked in Japan for more than 12 years in the eighties and nineties, in Osaka, Nagoya and Tokyo with the U. S. State Department, Citibank and Merrill Lynch. After many more years in China in banking (Deutsche Bank and Ping An Bank) and consulting, I am back in Tokyo conducting the business of Yangtze Century Ltd. (Hong Kong/Shanghai) and producing this blog. E-mail me at smharnerco@yahoo.com.

For Stability In East Asia: U.S. Should Abrogate Cold War Era 'Mutual Defense' Treaties

From the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty, signed September 8, 1951; renewed January 19, 1960

Militants burn a mock US flag during a protest near the US embassy in Manila on November 15, 2011, coinciding with the visit of US Secretary Hillary Clinton for the observance of the 60th anniversary of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. The protesters said that there was no reason to celebrate 60 years of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty and the so-called defense partnership with the United States. (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)

Article V: Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes….

Article VI: For the purpose of contributing to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East, the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan….

From the U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty, signed August 30, 1951

Article IV: Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes….

From the U.S.-Republic of Korea Mutual Defense Treaty, signed October 1, 1953

Article III: Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties in territories now under their respective administrative control, or hereafter recognized by one of the Parties as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the other, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes….

Article IV: The Republic of Korea grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about the territory of the Republic of Korea as determined by mutual agreement….

For decades to come, students of world history, diplomacy, and war will study the political and military dynamics of the current period in East Asian and East Asian-U.S. relations. Will they be studying–in the manner of Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August about the first month of WWI–a seemingly inertial, unstoppable descent into unthinkable Armageddon? Or will this be lesson in how human evolution, modern communications, and wisdom finally triumphed over history?

At this point, I am hopeful it will be the latter, but cannot dismiss the possibility that it could be the former. What seems certain is that this year will be fateful–possibly for good, possible for disaster–in East Asian geopolitics and military relations.

Three potential flash points are well known:

The dispute between Japan and China in the East China Sea over sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

The dispute between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea over sovereignty over Huangyan Island/Scarborough Shoal/and other islands in the Spratlys.

North Korea’s provocative development of nuclear weapons and other acts of belligerence.

How involved are United States citizens in these disputes? Deeply, of course, not only because of the commitments expressed and implied in the 1950s vintage Cold War origin “mutual security treaties” above, but because of the U.S. military bases and personnel that the treaties have legitimized and justified ever since.

The U.S. still maintains some 28,500 servicemen and women in South Korea and some 34,000 uniformed personnel plus dependents in Japan. Two major U.S. air force bases and the Futenma Marine Air Base occupy a large part of Okinawa. The U.S. Seventh Fleet is headquartered in Yokosuka, Japan.

Rather than how the U.S. could be drawn into the hostilities in the region, the more important and urgent question is “why?” Why, that is, would U.S. vital interests be imperiled by any conceivable threats to Japan, South Korea, or, especially, the Philippines such as to justify the sacrifice of American blood and treasure, including, accepting the risk however remote of nuclear war.

Objectively, taking a cold but realistic and unsentimental view, the continuing commitments implied in the 1950s vintage treaties and the continued (‘tripwire’) positioning of U.S. forces cannot be justified by U.S. interests. On the contrary, in today’s East Asia, these (in fact one-sided) “mutual defense” commitments and bases are unnecessary and have served only to increase instability and insecurity in the region.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

The Clinton quote, “We will always stand and fight with you to achieve the future we seek,” would seem to beg the question, especially from Filipinos, Japanese and South Koreans, as to who “we” in “the future we seek” is? For most of America’s post-war period, “we” has almost exclusively meant the US.

As thoughtful and intelligent as this article is, however, until it is deemed in the interests of the Americans to remove their overwhelming presence from East Asia, or anywhere else for that matter, they will continue to muddy the waters in the South China Sea and the Sea of Japan looking for one advantage or another at the expense of peace and stability in the region.

Great article Stephen. Your logic is perfect. As usuaul, the US is about 40 years out of step and kilter with reality. All the US has to do is to sign a non aggression pact in the South China Sea with China – and get the ASEAN regional countries to sign up to a sea/territory agreement with China. It is insane that these COLD war legacies go on – and its insane that the US is spending such a high % of US tax payers money on the Pentagon – when 4/5′s of US citizens are struggling with poverty. Far cheaper and ore ffective to do a deal with China and use US taxpayers money to help the US taxpayers at home in the US and build the Us economy rather than pour money down the black hole of the Military Industrial Complex.

Speaking of Japan, the alliance now is nothing but an excuse for us to bully neighbors, leading to beef up force after make a trouble with neighbors by our arrogant activity. Then more money for defense has to be required of ourselves to afford. It doesn’t make sense. We couldn’t come up to be that arrogont, rude, if there was no alliance between US. Maybe it’s better not to be kept, or more limited, if we were going to be that perky because of the alliance, or getting disliked by neighbors in consequence of this. I think we’re going to quit many of arrogant atitudes toward China and South Korea, if there was no alliance anymore, or the alliance was more limited. It’s going to get less worse the hate speech or racial discrimination toward residents come from these neighboring countries, the acts some of us are actually committing, or many of us are holding inside. Also which is going to make me stop wondering about a question, as is there any difference in weight of life between US citizens and us, by each time hearing about Osprey flying over Japan.

You make a good point about Japan without the alliance. To be sure, Japan would have been forced to make amends in Asia without the US protection.

As for beefing up the forces with the revision of Article 9, there are 3 aspects to this decision that make perfect sense for politicians and their special interests.

The first is internal politics. For all of its hype, Abenomics will not likely reverse the economic fortunes of most Japanese families. There is nothing like a foreign enemy, especially an old one like China, to foster patriotic support for government during bad economic times even if conflict never escalates beyond its current tensions.

The second is economic. The Japanese defense industry has long been stifled by its inability to export arms. The revision will allow them new markets for arms sales.

Finally, the US has been pressuring Japan since the first Gulf War to provide troops on the grounds in its many foreign wars. The revision will accomplish this and soon after it is adopted, Japanese young men and women will take up arms in Middle East wars with their America counterparts. I leave it to you to decide if this will make the Japanese nation safer.

Given all of these forces arrayed for revision, it would seem this will be Japan’s future, like it or not.

Thank you for responding me. Thinking about amends what Japan was supposed to make without the alliance, I’m not sure if there was more or lot to happen, as long as which for South Korea was formally done, even there’s still an issue left, one between China was forgiven, North Korea is supposed to be paied in the future, as which we have to, though I couldn’t refer to ones for other Asian nations. As for our Constitution amendment, so far almost half and little more people seem to not agree with, but actually, more people might agree if only there was one more missile flying toward Japan from North Korea, I assume. We nowadays are very simple and easily frightened by a missile, it much worked just before the Lower House election in December. Frightening Japan is easy. Also if once there happened a casualty or dead in the disputed area, people might agree to revise it without a missile as well. I’m not sure for now how it’s going to, if both incidents were not appeared. Arm selling lifting is already remarked recently, after Upper House election, as one of Abe’s major mandates. Not only selling nuclear merchandise, but also arms or military equipments, only for our own welfare, what a pathetic people we were coming up with. We’ve been never changed while we’re still thinking “It’ll be OK if only we’re happy.” I’m not sure anymore if there’s any chance for us to become a country getting loved by neighbors. It’s never going to be loved whenever armed Japanese person is coming into a foreign country, especially in Asia. An armed foreign individual always looks to be scary in any places, it’s not avoidable. I wish we’re going to be the last to do it, as long as our forefathers were quite the oppsite. I think we’re going to cooperate with another way but providing troops, including doing something before some bad thing happens, or preventing, as very descendants of the people who left a long time burden. It’s not a matter of like or not for me, near mandatory one.

amigo, It’s not what I meant, I couldn’t have spelled enough or good, as I wanted to, or as I do it in my own language. Just everything recently happened is not what I expeced, as for nuclear plant, lifting plan of equipment, Aso’s bad mouth again, also people’s reaction, or else. I supposed Saiki was sent to make any consent of specific details to prevent a clash, but it seems it was not. Maybe his dispatch was just a posture, he might have repeated the same thing in Beijin as “There’s no dispute” like a slogan I guess, really disappointed. I’m not feeling threatened but Netouyo and others seem to be. I still want Japan to be the last one to send an armed individual to abroad, since which looks to be very scary, not appropriate with a country having a past which gave suffer to the neighborfood, just as Nonaka or deceased Gotoda said before. Without force is what I want most as you know, compromise has to be required more of Japan, who breached the promise.

I didn’t mean that you have said that. I understand what you said. I just wanted to borrow your comment to start mine. I am sorry for the inconvenience.

it is a pattern to use this threat or that threat to scare people. People should be wise enough and strong enough not to be intimidated.

Is Abe sincere for having a good relationship with China ? Yes. Has Abe done enough to build the trust with China ? No.

Both some Japanese and some Chinese said extreme things. The truth is that both Xi and Abe quietly manage the dispute so that a conflict be avoided. At least I wish so.

There were many reasons for Noda to decide to “nationalize” the Senkakus. It is a mistake. It not only has negative impact on Japan China relationship, it also has negative impact on US China realtionship.

In Asia, there are more relationships than just Japan-US relationship. There is Russia-US-China relationship, there is India-US-China relationship, there is Japan-China-US relationship, there is Russia-China-India relationship, etc

If Abe pivots Japanese diplomacy to US-Japan alliance, he is truly amaturish.

amigo, Relieved to know my writing was not misunderstood, I’m just always worrying about whether it’s mistaken or not, because of my ability. It’s not taken so seriously in here, how Saiki’s mission was actually done, and people less care about it apparently, it has to be care more in the first place. I wish as well Xi and Abe quietly manage the dispute, while Saiki was said to be that he was just a child errand. Odd thing is, people don’t think it’s Noda’s worst thing done during his tenure to be the naturalization, don’t even tend to accuse him for that in here. Also as you say, which decision made an influence to many of relationship, people don’t even think about it either, just rely on US’s help. We’re really hopeless people. I’m not a necessarily anti-USA person, if only they treat and look at us to be ones having a same weight of life with US citizens, unfortunately so far, which is not able while they’re flying Osprey over Japan, above or near the people, with burning Yanbaru forest. Which is not acceptable. Of course this is my matter not yours at all, Chinese force made no harm with us.

Probably, Japanese consider Chinese sanding patrol ships to Senakakus as a coercive action, as some described it. Because Noda “nationalized” the Senkakus, China has to do something to protect Chinese claim. Sending of patrol ships to Senkakus is a proper diplomatic action, not a coercive action. If China fails to do that, she could potentially lose the claim in future. There is a very well established case called “Island of Palmas case” to study if you are interested.

amigo, Appreciate your explanation of Chinese vessels sending, I haven’t been worrying if they’re serious for something, since I always knew China’s not in intent to make a real clash, my friends as well, one of my friends said that a possibility of causing an actual battle first seems to belong to rather our side. Unfortunately, the media and many people seem that they don’t have such an idea, that the same as me and my friends. Good news is, Ihara just visited Beijing soon after Saiki, maybe this time would be coming up with something I’m expecting. As it’s just a same time with US chopper went down and crashed, one soldier’s still missing so far, hope he’s OK and found sooner, wish China not to send a vessel by this timing, since which is going to instigate Japanese opinion unnecessarily, I’m concerned about if they take it to be something like cashing on a vulnerable status, but I’m sure Chinese government knows it and will manage it well, they won’t do such a thing only disgracing China’s name. By the way I’m very confused actually, I believe that the last address you made on my place is literally true, also if you were the person I supposed to be, which I’ve ever been believing, then I’m pretty upset. Anyway, if no answer, I’ll take it as my guess was not wrong.